Home » A New Crash-Test Is Kicking Automakers’ Butts, And It’s Not The One You Think

A New Crash-Test Is Kicking Automakers’ Butts, And It’s Not The One You Think

Iihs Overlap Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s “SORB,” the Small Overlap Rigid Barrier test, launched in 2012, many automakers were caught flat-footed, with vehicles that had been Top Safety Picks now scoring poor ratings in the new test. SORB was a humongous shakeup for the car world, with automakers all redesigning their vehicles to handle the challenge — sometimes at significant financial and package-space/design cost. But now, over a decade later, it’s not SORB or its cousin passenger-side-SORB that challenge automakers most, it’s the new updated Moderate Overlap Test. Here’s why.

I used to feel weird about new automotive crash tests, mostly because there’s really no limit to how many crash tests an organization can create, and the testing organizations have incentive to keep the new tests coming. At a certain point, we could all be driving bankvaults on wheels, and that’s no fun, I used to think. I’ve changed my mind on that, because many modern crash tests make sense. IIHS’s Small Overlap Rigid Barrier test, for example, is clearly a common crash scenario: Either two vehicles in opposing lanes crash after one drifts over the line, or one vehicle drifts into a pole or a tree or a barrier — it’s not a farfetched scenario by any stretch:

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom
Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 10.48.06 Am
Image: IIHS

Up until SORB, the hardest crash test a vehicle in the U.S. had to pass was the moderate overlap crash test. It’s similar to SORB in that only a small portion of the front end of a vehicle hits a barrier, but instead of 25 percent like in SORB (shown above), it’s 40 percent (shown below). With more of the vehicle’s structure able to protect the occupant against the barrier, this was generally a test that automakers passed more easily than SORB.

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 10.53.07 Am
Image: IIHS

The Small Overlap test (SORB) was a severe challenge cars in the early-mid 2010s, as those vehicles hadn’t been designed with provisions for such a severe outboard vehicle impact. Here’s a 2014 IIHS study of some mid-size SUVs, many of which got completely annihilated by the new SORB test:

ADVERTISEMENT

Just look at how difficult it was for the Mazda CX-9’s safety cage to handle all those loads imparted so far outboard:

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.04.10 Am
Screenshot: IIHS

Here’s a look at the same test, but this time run on small cars:

My goodness look at how badly the Kia Soul’s structure collapses, and how much the dummy moves outboard away from the airbag due to the nature of the crash:

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.12.08 Am
Screenshot: IIHS

In time, automakers designed cars that could pass SORB, but then came the passenger-side version of the test:

ADVERTISEMENT

As IIHS points out, automakers sometimes didn’t bolster the passenger-side to pass the test, since it wasn’t part of IIHS’s initial test:

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.15.13 Am
Image: IIHS

Eventually, automakers either patched their cars up, or redesign the crash structure entirely for a new generation. The Jeep Wrangler JL, for example, clearly received a patch. Next time you see a 2022+ Jeep Wrangler, pay attention to its passenger’s side frame just aft of the front wheel. You’ll see this big bracket hanging low — a ground clearance-killing bracket that diehard off-roaders loath:

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.05.21 Am

Anyway, SORB has been a big deal for a while, but recently, while chatting with IIHS’s Director of Media Relations, Joe Young, he told me that, actually, the test that many automakers are struggling with right now isn’t SORB, but the Institute’s new Modified Moderate Overlap test.

ADVERTISEMENT
Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.19.20 Am
Image: IIHS

The modified Moderate Overlap test is the same as before — 40 percent of the front structure hits a rigid barrier — except now there’s a rear passenger, specifically a “smaller Hybrid III dummy representing a small woman or 12-year-old child is belted in the second-seat behind the driver.” That’s right; up until recently, frontal crash tests were only focused on the front passengers.

This topic came up with I emailed IIHS about the new Tesla Cybertruck crash tests; why had the Institute not put the Cybertruck through its hardest test, but instead the Moderate Overlap? Well, it turns out, Moderate Overlap is IIHS’s hardest test right now, with IIHS’s Joe Young telling me:

We chose the updated moderate overlap test because it’s proving to be the most challenging for new vehicles. Most new vehicles are doing fine in the side and small overlap crash tests since they’ve been around for a bit, but this one is proving challenging, and so we’re seeing a range of performance that can help consumers differentiate among models.

[…]

…the front seats have gotten a lot safer in recent years thanks to crash testing that has mostly focused on these seating positions. Our new test is the first frontal crash test in the U.S. to add a dummy and related scoring metrics to the second row, which is forcing automakers to incorporate more sophisticated belt technologies into those seats and, in some cases, to redesign the rear seats. It’s proving to be challenging for some models.

If you review the current scores by vehicle category (as an example I’ve linked small SUVs below, but you can toggle around), and focus on the three left-most columns (which are destructive tests), you’ll see that the moderate overlap test is where we’re seeing a lot of variation in scores as you scroll down.

Certainly, we are still seeing some vehicles fall short in the other crash tests. And as I mentioned, I think we will want to return to these EVs soon so we can provide consumers with important information about how they stack up in other test types.

Indeed, if you look at the Institute’s test Scores, even Subaru didn’t get a good rating on the new Moderate Overlap test, and longtime high-scorers, the Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V, got only marginal and poor scores, respectively.

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.28.22 AmScreen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.34.18 Am Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.34.32 Am

Clearly, this test is the toughest one IIHS has today, and it comes as a result of an IIHS study of fatal crashes involving rear-seat passengers. From IIHS:

ADVERTISEMENT

A new IIHS study of frontal crashes in which belted rear-seat passengers were killed or seriously injured suggests that more sophisticated restraint systems are needed in the back.

Front-seat occupants have benefited greatly from advancements in restraints — the umbrella term for airbags and seat belts, which work together during a crash to keep a person in the proper position and manage forces on the body. Back-seat occupants haven’t benefited from this technology to the same extent.

You might be thinking that, in the back seat you don’t have to worry about intrusion of the crash structure, and while that’s true, the crash forces on passenger’s back there are still enormous, and they are not mitigated by the same safety features found up front — no airbags, and oftentimes no seatbelt tensioners. From IIHS:

As soon as a frontal collision starts, seat belts in the front seat tighten around the occupants, thanks to embedded devices called crash tensioners. At the same time, the front airbags deploy within a fraction of a second. Depending on the crash configuration, the side airbags may deploy too.

The tightened belts and deployed airbags keep the front-seat occupants safely away from the steering wheel, instrument panel and other structure when the vehicle stops abruptly, even if the force of the crash pushes that structure inward. To reduce the risk of chest injuries, these belts also have force limiters, which allow some webbing to spool out before forces from the belt get too high.

In the rear seat, side airbags protect passengers in a side crash, but there are no front airbags, and the seat belts generally lack crash tensioners and force limiters.

Although intruding structure is usually not an issue in the back seat during a frontal collision, crash forces can cause a back-seat passenger to collide with the vehicle interior. Seat belts can prevent that, but, as the new study shows, seat belts without force limiters can inflict chest injuries.

The study talks about how baby seats are safe, but that for people in the rear not in child seats, sometimes crash forces from their head hitting part of the car or from the seatbelt can cause serious injury.

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.45.20 Am

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.42.39 Am

Will rear seats start to get airbags? Will we see more inflatable airbag-seatbelts in the rear? We’ll see. But for sure what we’ll see more of are crash tensioners and force limiters. “These two technologies combine to limit the forces to the chest during a frontal crash, which can prevent injuries,” per IIHS.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some of those injuries can be a result of what’s called “submarining,” when the lap belt rides up into the abdominal:

Screen Shot 2025 07 28 At 11.48.47 Am
screenshot: IIHS

Here’s a look at IIHS’s crash report for this new juggernaut of a test:

If big-dogs like the Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V are struggling, you know this is a tough one, and certainly now the big-dog in IIHS’s already challenging barrage of crash tests.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
117 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Commercial Cook
Commercial Cook
8 hours ago

so the insurance rates are going up?

JIHADJOE
JIHADJOE
10 hours ago

Not implementing the same safety measures built for SORB on the passenger side is quite the example of building to pass a test and not because they actually learned a lesson.

Bags
Bags
9 hours ago
Reply to  JIHADJOE

I don’t disagree entirely, but I do want to point out that the Small Overlap test is less severe to the passenger side in general because the dash is often further away and there’s no steering wheel or pedals.
In some of the worst examples the dash would come in and the steering wheel would smack the driver – obviously not good. On the passenger side, there can be intrusion issues, but usually the issue is that the dash gets turned and thus the airbag gets turned, so the passenger can go between the front and side airbags (this can happen on the drivers side too).

Shooting Brake
Shooting Brake
10 hours ago

The lack of universal pre-tensioners and force limiters in rear seats is an embarrassment for the entire industry (save the few that have both). The tech has existed for like two decades but has largely avoided rear seat implementation just to save money. It’s also waaaaay harder to even figure out which vehicles even have these features than it should be.

Dingus
Dingus
7 hours ago
Reply to  Shooting Brake

Quick spin of some data says that Volvo has had them in the rear since about 2010 (with some earlier models having them).

Subaru started in around 2018, GM only in the last few years, same with Ford, but they had inflatable rear seatbelts starting in 2011 for some models as an option, Toyotas in about 2015, Honda is pretty spotty with some Accords and Civics getting them around 2010, the rest is all over.

Tankdeer
Tankdeer
6 hours ago
Reply to  Dingus

I know for certain that Audi started using them in the rear at least as early as the B7 generation A4/S4/RS4, so late 2005. A common upgrade for A4 guys is to pull the Recaro seats from an S4 or RS4, and when grabbing the rears from a wrecked car you have to make sure the pre-tensioners haven’t gone off or the belts are useless. (The center belt is integrated into the seat back)

I would have assumed that most European manufactures were implementing it around the same time

Shooting Brake
Shooting Brake
4 hours ago
Reply to  Dingus

Yeah Volvo seems to be the most consistent, especially with both (no surprise there). It gets tricky cause some brands will use pretensioners but not force limiters, which seems real dumb. And implementation varies a lot not just by brand but by model, year, and occasionally even by trim level. But it should’ve just been standard on everything by like 2015 at the latest if you ask me…

Bassracerx
Bassracerx
14 hours ago

the old test just about every car was acing. Good on the Institute for Highway Safety for updating the test. I feel almost bad for automakers tho going from perfect scores to bad scores in one year is rough tho as you can’t always just beef up safety in a car halfway through it’s lifecycle but in 2.5-5 years every car on the road will be much improved thanks to these new tests.

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
18 hours ago

Growing up, a staple of the local county fair was a demolition derby. I wonder how modern cars would do. Against the old minimal crumple zone, body on frame behemoths, probably not well.

I would like to see more recent de-air bagged cars take on each other in the same kind of contest. I would pay money to see that.

Dingus
Dingus
7 hours ago

You do realize that we ran out of demo derby-grade BOF boats quite a while ago; everything else now is someone’s classic or rotting into rust. Nobody is running a b-body buick as they’re pretty much gone.

Demos have been using unibody cars for a long time now with the occasional panther tucked in here and there.

I’m honestly surprised it hasn’t just switched entirely to BOF trucks and SUVs.

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
4 hours ago
Reply to  Dingus

It’s been oh, 50 years since I’ve been to one. I’ll have to check it out.

Mod Motor Guy
Mod Motor Guy
3 hours ago

At our local ones, I see ASS LOADS of Grand Ams and other cheap shit FWD V6 cars.

They aren’t without charm, however. When a guy comes for another guy, the first guy cuts the wheel and hammers it in reverse, cutting a powered Rockford while the aggressor screams by and hits some other poor bastard.

Lots of spinouts and collateral damage!

Luxrage
Luxrage
21 hours ago

That picture involving “submarining,” where the belt is riding too high on the abdomen… I remember reading a long time ago about what they called “Lap Belt Syndrome” which was a large amount of intestinal and abdominal damage caused by crashes in older vehicles where the rear seats only had lap belts. If it rode too high that was the only thing stopping you when you go from 60 to 0, and would often also cause spine injuries when people were being forced into a > shape during the crash from it in the higher up in their lower spine instead of their hips.

Last edited 21 hours ago by Luxrage
Lightning
Lightning
10 hours ago
Reply to  Luxrage

Someone sitting in the middle rear died in my dad’s RX300 due to submarining. She appeared not badly injured after the accident and in the hospital was told she was going to be fine. But she unexpected succumbed the next day because of internal organ injuries that the doctor didn’t detect.

Uninformed Fucknugget
Uninformed Fucknugget
22 hours ago

It seems crazy that the manufacturers updated the left side of vehicles to pass the small overlap but only addressing the right side after it was failed in a right side test.

OttosPhotos
OttosPhotos
23 hours ago
  1. If you’re going to crash, steer your vehicle so you hit it right in the middle.
  2. Didn’t know they had paint on the dummy heads, that’s a neat idea.
  3. I usually play YouTube at 1.5-2x (why oh why do people speak so S-L-O-W-L-Y in them), which makes the crashes in the videos in this article more horrendous.
Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
18 hours ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

Half Blue Man Group, all crash injury data gatherers.

Pupmeow
Pupmeow
11 hours ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

They speak slowly so there is more time for ads.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago

I seem to remember someone also used to do tests regarding the cost of repairing vehicles in a crash? Do they still do this? Are the new safety requirements causing minor damages in a crash to write the vehicle off due to safety? Has any tests been done regarding the increase in safety requirements causing an increase in accidents? You can’t see out of a bank vault. The best accident is an accident that is avoided but that is never considered in the evaluation. I think we can agree the most important safety device is a good driver but if you take away visability you are probably causing more accidents. A simple measure would be test for increased accidents after new safety requirements.

Akio
Akio
8 hours ago

That would be interesting to see for sure.
A counterpoint to be high repair costs would be medical bills, I guess. Writing off a car can be cheap compared to an unexpected stay in the US healthcare system.
Doctor: “Goods news your car is fine, but you and your passenger sustained a minor spinal injury which required emergency surgery and extended physical therapy. Here is the form to sign all remaining assets, including the car, over to ‘Our Lady of Perpetual Profits Medical Group LLC’.”

Crank Shaft
Crank Shaft
1 day ago

I have a cardinal rule about seatbelts, other than always using them. Specifically, always keep the lap part below the top of your hips and well snugged to them.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  Crank Shaft

I no longer have hips. Lol

Crank Shaft
Crank Shaft
23 hours ago

Lift up your gut. They’re under there somewhere. 😀

Goof
Goof
1 day ago

Time for us to all pilot Zorbs instead.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago

The IIHS is one of my favourite testing bodies. They use real world fatalities to create their tests and refuse to rest on their laurels.

They keep adding new things as well, like headlight beam pattern, crash avoidance, and ease of use of the LATCH system.

The auto industry’s goal is to push out the cheapest acceptable product. Without orgs that are willing to hold them to a standard, we’d all still be driving around in cars that impaled you with the steering column while knocking you out with the steel dashboard.

Between being a parent and working in the safety industry, I’m a big fan of the people working hard to make things safer.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago

I disagree once an organization gets a taste of the money they are like a shark. Just more tests and impossible tests. What is the mark for acceptable?

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
10 hours ago

“What is the mark for acceptable?”

“A”

Rick C
Rick C
23 hours ago

The IIHS has a nasty habit of taking a vehicle that was declared ‘good’ in testing in 2023 for example, redefining the test for 2024, and declaring the very same vehicle ‘poor’. When is good enough, good enough?

Mouse
Mouse
21 hours ago
Reply to  Rick C

If they’re devising the tests based on common real-world fatalities, it’s hard for me to argue against them saying “what we said was good before isn’t good enough”.

Peter Andruskiewicz
Peter Andruskiewicz
20 hours ago
Reply to  Rick C

The ratings are only as good as the testing method at the time, and like the scientific method where you use new data to formulate new experiments and hypothesis, that’s what the IIHS is doing. I’d much rather have a change in ratings due to new information than carrying out outdated testing (or at least never updating it) just for consistency with past results. That’s how you end up with driving cycles for measuring fuel economy that need tons of adjustment to even begin to approach real world conditions…

Ash78
Ash78
23 hours ago

I tend to agree, but like the others who replied (so far) I think any testing body is going to behave similar to a private company — they’ll keep finding ways to push the limits sometimes beyond what’s probable or realistic, just in the name of progress. That’s a bigger part of why I hate the term progress/progressive just as much as conservative (politics, policy, you name it) — I prefer thoughtful, logical, achievable, reasonable, and a good balance of active and passive safety (IIHS is almost entirely focused on passive). I know IIHS has to pay the bills and has a team to worry about, but I also think there should be specific thresholds before new tests are introduced…for example, as crash trends change over time.

Yes, we did buy our Odyssey because it was one of the early adopters of the small frontal overlap test.

And the A-pillars are fricking huge. I’m not 100% sure the tradeoff is worth it, but no statistician out there is asking “How many more pedestrians have been killed by Odysseys since the 2011 redesign?” because that’s a really hard question to answer definitively.

Just brainstorming. This is the kind of thing I have to think about in financial risk management, then try to see if we have the statisticians to help quantify it somehow.

Alexander Moore
Alexander Moore
18 hours ago
Reply to  Ash78

I prefer thoughtful, logical, achievable, reasonable, and a good balance of active and passive safety (IIHS is almost entirely focused on passive).’

Careful what you wish for. That’s how Euro NCAP works now, and even if a car is 100% safe in a crash and does great structurally, it can only get 3 stars if it doesn’t have active safety assists like auto-emergency braking, lane-keep assist, speed-limit alerts, driver awareness monitoring, etc. etc.

Last edited 18 hours ago by Alexander Moore
Ash78
Ash78
8 hours ago

Great point. I guess I was imagining safety in 3 buckets:

Active Preventive Safety: Good visibility, logical control positioning, emergency procedures are easy to follow. (If we could somehow rank these either objective or subjectively, things like push-button gearshifts would cause a car to fall in the rankings.)

Passive Preventive Safety: AEB, lane assist, etc

Passive Reactive Safety: All the other stuff to physically protect you in the collision.

So normally when I talk about Active Safety, it’s almost entirely first bucket. I don’t think it’s fair to ding automakers for not having the latest electronic gadgetry until a point of mass acceptance and flawless performance (eg ABS)

Cerberus
Cerberus
22 hours ago

I largely disagree. Yeah, it’s funny, rigid steering columns with points at the end—what were they thinking!? Not about safety, those people had been through the Depression and world war, so wusses they were not—but collapsible columns have been mandated for almost 60 years (predating IIHS crash testing). One of the many things I hate about humanity is the way they can’t as a whole seem to find a sensible position on anything, it’s just swing the pendulum from one side to the other. There should be a sensible balance and we are now well into the pendulum swing of minimal returns for ever-increasing cost and daily annoyance for some further reduced risk in an already safe vehicle during an unlikely event (though my annoyance is more about the electronic irresponsible driver-enabler-tech than the increased rear seat safety discussed in the article). There is no possibility of 100% safety and attempting it will only result in safe “lives” that are increasingly not worth living because it requires giving up more and more control. At some point, this leads to us becoming perpetual infants living pointless existences of zero growth under the strong arm of monitoring and control algorithms in the name of safety. Oi.

Anyway, studies have shown that increased safety systems result in people tending to take larger risks, but I’ll set that aside and keep it to the cars themselves. It’s not even so simple as: this increases safety because whose are we talking about? Many of these newer features are just exchanging mitigated risk in unlikely scenarios for greater risk of larger consequence to outside parties, like pillbox windows and tall cowls (or higher seating to counter the cowls, which means taller vehicle and higher cg, which is also less safe) resulting in massive blindspots and greater threat to non-drivers, over-reliance on poor electronics that give a sense of complacency, disconnection from the road that makes driving feel a lot slower to the operator while providing greatly reduced feedback (this point is different than taking increased risks, this is a reduction in risk awareness), and higher weights and larger sizes (but with cramped interiors!) that make them less able to maneuver and causing more damage to whatever or whomever they hit. Yeah, but mission accomplished—cars are much safer! Nope, the IIHS can’t stop, they need to remain relevant and they love their power, so they need to move the “safety” goalpost again, pushing cars to be even heavier and larger and on and on. Then there’s the greater cumulative environmental cost of the extra resources used to manufacture them, vehicles being scrapped for minor collisions, increased emissions from higher rate of tire wear, and extra energy required to move these land whales. IIHS has absolutely pushed the government and companies to do better and that was good for a time, but at this point, much of the latest (dubious) safety is taking some risk away from the driver and putting a lot more of it on everyone outside of the vehicle. Personally, I’d rather be able to see out of my car and avoid a crash or not hit a pedestrian or biker and if that means some increased risk to me, so what? Besides, I don’t buy stupid jacked up vehicles with a propensity to rollover (and if I did, that’s my choice and risk), so WTF should I be forced to deal with having to see around Doric temple A-pillars when trying not to take someone out when navigating a city?

A few years back, a dummy in a ~2000 Honda Civic did a barrel roll almost to the height of my car in front of me on the highway, flipped a few times on the pavement, and landed right side up. The driver was shaken, but fine and if the car didn’t have a wheel torn off by the initial impact that sent it airborne, he might have been able to drive it away—even the windshield was only cracked at the corners. That was a car that met safety standards from a quarter century ago, prior to increased rollover standards, and not a car particularly focused on safety. It probably helped that it didn’t weigh 2 tons, but more modern standards would have effectively done nothing better than manage their increased weight.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
10 hours ago
Reply to  Cerberus

IIRC the pill box that is the newer Camaro is a product of focus group preferences, not safety. People in those focus groups LIKED the pill box look, at least from the outside.

Cerberus
Cerberus
1 hour ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

That’s certainly a good example of poor visibility, though the pillbox model applies to a lot of cars. I figured the Camaro was down more to side impact against tall vehicles and reduction of weight on an already heavy car by keeping glass area down, but I could see it being someone listening to a focus group as well, probably some grandpa thinking back to the cool guy with the chopped Merc in his neighborhood growing up. I understand the impetus behind focus groups for large companies with a lot of money in a new product, but they rarely result in a better product and I wouldn’t be surprised if more times than not, the product sales are disappointing because, when you try to please too many people, you end up not really pleasing much of anyone. That’s a poor strategy for a product that’s supposed to embody a badass attitude and badasses don’t need the external validation of a people-pleaser. Part of the problem with focus groups is that something so basic and simple as thinking for a moment about the hard reality of driving a car with no outward visibility is beyond the capability of far too many people. That corporate self-doubt is funny, though, when so much of capitalist economies are based on selling people crap they were completely fine living without before they knew it existed by convincing them they need that new thing to be happy. Depressingly, if unsurprisingly, I guess that indicates that quite a lot of people are generally unhappy and willing to settle for the temporary highs of new stuff and are too clueless about being caught in such an unsatisfying cycle.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
10 hours ago

“The auto industry’s goal is to push out the cheapest acceptable product. Without orgs that are willing to hold them to a standard, we’d all still be driving around in cars that impaled you with the steering column while knocking you out with the steel dashboard.”

That’s not quite true. Auto manufacturers have been adding safety features since day one all on their own:

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2021/ford-pioneers-auto-safety

https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/evolution-of-car-safety-features

A big problem in the earlier days was safety didn’t sell. The public wanted faster, bigger, shinier, and more powerful cars but safer? Safety was for p#$$!#$, REAL men weren’t concerned about safety because crashes only happened to bad drivers.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
9 hours ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Fair enough. But the IIHS showing above how some manufacturers were only adding reinforcement to one side instead of both, shows that there is still a limit to their own advancement.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
9 hours ago

Sort of. The benefit of extra passenger protection isn’t always a given as when there is no passenger.

There IS however always a driver.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
9 hours ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Airbags started the same way. My w126 only has a driver side airbag, the passenger one showed up in the last couple years of production.

But I feel like we all agree that airbags should be on both sides.

Trust Doesn't Rust
Trust Doesn't Rust
1 day ago

This is why I drive a car that doesn’t have rear seats. Safety.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 day ago

Right on! Nobody is ever going to die in the back seat of my Spitfire.

How about we just all pay attention and not crash so much in the first place. Start by getting rid of “infotainment screens” and make most functions of smart phones not work at more than walking pace?

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Arbitrarily locking out features at speed causes more distraction in my experience. Because “this worked, but now it doesn’t” is distracting.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 day ago

Not working at all makes that easy. You shouldn’t be touching the damned thing in the first place – literally touching a smart phone in the car while on the road is illegal in my state. And yes, I do it very occasionally, I freely admit to being a hypocrite. But I would be just fine with a complete ban on doing anything with them in motion. Pull over, input your nav necessities or whatever, then drive.

Somehow we managed to get by for 100 years behind the wheel with no electronics at all.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

We also used oil lamps for headlights at one point. Life moves on.

The problem with the human mind is that it craves stimulation, and society is making that worse with everything outside the car.

What happens to bored drivers? They zone out, fall asleep, speed, make aggressive maneuvers, etc.

There is a balance to be had between rawdogging hundreds of miles of interstate and being a distracted idiot weaving all over the road.

I’m partial to albums, podcasts, and good voice-to-text/text-to-voice controls.

Also, PHYSICAL BUTTONS that I can operate without looking.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 day ago

Life has moved on rather too far when some cars have a literal 40IN+ TV in the dash.

I am very much with you on physical buttons – touchscreens in cars should also be banned. But unfortunately, they are dirt cheap today, and the automakers have managed to convince the great unwashed that a cost-saving measure is “high tech”.

I have five cars and zero touch screens, and I plan to keep it that way if at all possible. BMW iDrive and Mercedes Comand were a much better solution until they each ruined them.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Oh I agree. I was perfectly happy once we hit the 8″ infotainment screen, because the GPS map was large enough that a glance could get me all the info I needed.

Beyond that, they just got distracting.

As far as non touchscreen setups go, my 2010 Genesis Coupe had probably THE best cockpit layout of any vehicle I’ve driven. Right down to the physical “OFF” button for the display. Made night driving SO much better.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
2 hours ago

I don’t find a screen any bigger than that of my phone to be an advantage – as you say, it’s just more distraction.

My ’14 Mercedes has the ability to properly shut off the screen too – and I use it. It’s the only car I have with a screen, but it’s not a touchscreen – Comand for the win.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

I have literally never been in a car with a touch screen and have no desire to be.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
4 hours ago

I wish I could say the same!

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago

I agree but we allow morons to drive that should not be allowed to drive. I am sure we all know at least one person who should not be driving. But how do we get that to happen?

Mouse
Mouse
21 hours ago

I am very much in favor of significantly more difficult driving tests and required re-tests every n years. It’s not going to happen in the US any time soon, but a gal can dream.

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
9 hours ago

Oh I’ve been an advocate for stricter licensing for decades.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Yes inform drivers inserting a cell phone into a charger will block all apps accept GPS AND SONGS

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
4 hours ago

I think the touch screen should simply be blocked from working while the phone is in motion from beyond walking pace to the takeoff speed of an airline.

And given I have seen a couple of pedestrians almost get splattered because they were paying more attention to their phone than where they were walking, maybe in motion period…

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
10 hours ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

I remember people trying to navigate while driving with a map spread over the dash. Pretty sure that was worse than a screen.

And people still did all kinds of other stupid crap behind the wheel too: ate, drank (no cup holders so cup was held in the lap) read the newspaper, put on makeup, shaved, screwed around with the radio/tape deck, turned around to yell at the kids, etc. Drivers were no safer in the good old days, just slower.

Trust Doesn't Rust
Trust Doesn't Rust
8 hours ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Correct. And, if my memory serves, there were a lot of campaigns and PSA’s to warn people against those types of distracted driving.

In my opinion, a combination of stricter enforcement, better driving instruction and testing, and higher/more expensive barriers to getting a license could cut down on a lot of these issues. Unfortunately, that would require increased public funding (i.e. taxes) and punish lower income individuals who wouldn’t be able to afford a license and don’t have access to good public transit.

So, I guess we’ll just keep doing what we do best. Allow it to happen and shake our heads in disappointment.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Amen brother frankly instead of making cell phone signal blockers illegal they should make them mandatory in cars. That would be the equivalent of making drunk driving impossible. That would save more lives than anything the IIHS has ever done.

Last edited 1 day ago by 1978fiatspyderfan
Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
19 hours ago

Wouldn’t that render GPS navigation on a phone inoperative? I’d rather someone glance at a GPS screen for a second than wrestle with a paper map (remember those?) for who knows how long.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
5 hours ago

No. Setup your navigation while stopped and in park. If you need to change something, pull over and stop. Block access to the phone while it is in motion. And I really could not care less if that keeps passengers from fiddling with their electronic pacifiers.

DJP
DJP
7 hours ago

Maybe now in the 2020s, but in the 80’s my dad had a Cadillac Allante, and when he had to take 2 kids in stead of one, we would just fold down the trunk pass-through and fit one of us in there belly down and facing forward!

Ignatius J. Reilly
Ignatius J. Reilly
1 day ago

I’ve never heard a reasonable complaint about additional crash testing, as there isn’t an inherent reason a safe car can’t also be fun. At least not for CUVs, SUVs like the Wrangler, or trucks. It isn’t like they are lightweight or fun to drive. They might as well be bank vaults.

Now, if we could get some safety standards for the general public, so that pedestrians aren’t being killed and injured at ever-increasing rates, that would be even better.

A Reader
A Reader
1 day ago

IIHS does do pedestrian injury tests too, as motorists hitting/killing pedestrians is just as expensive as killing a person in another car…

Edit: they could for sure do more as to their pedestrian tests

Last edited 1 day ago by A Reader
1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  A Reader

Most of these deaths could be prevented by not giving meat bags cart blanche to walk out into moving traffic and having the right of way. You can give a car the right of way at a railway crossing but that doesn’t make the train be able to stop any faster. Stop passing laws for blame after the accident based on bleeding heart stories and base them on stopping accidents

David Smith
David Smith
51 minutes ago

This is your biggest false equivalency. How many train tracks have a right of way for cars?
None.
How many places have a right of way for pedestrians?
Most.
If you’re driving in an area with cross walks and pedestrians you had better know that you are not a train and drive accordingly.

Ignatius J. Reilly
Ignatius J. Reilly
11 hours ago
Reply to  A Reader

Tests are great. Enforceable standards would matter a lot more.

A Reader
A Reader
7 hours ago

I’m with you, for sure

Space
Space
1 day ago

I wish to heap some blame on city infrastructure. Pedestrian/bike fatalities could be prevented by better street design. Pedestrian underpasses/overpasses, seperate bike lanes not part of the street and detached sidewalks could all save lives. Some cities care and are building it better now to save future lives and others… arent.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago
Reply to  Space

Not in cities built hundreds of years ago.

Exelleron
Exelleron
17 hours ago

Cities built hundreds of years ago were built for people and some horses. We changed them so cars could come in, and now pedestrians are killed in greater and greater numbers. The people where there first.

The car, in historical sense, is an anomaly in a city. Part of a driver’s responsibility for piloting a multi-thousand pound vehicle in such areas is awareness. Approach a crosswalk in a car? Slow down to check, the same as should be done at a RR crossing.

The law in my state is to stop for pedestrians in a x-walk. The amount of drivers I have made eye contact with as I am trying to cross in a marked x-walk that just do nothing is astonishing, and should be enforced much more harshly.

Ignatius J. Reilly
Ignatius J. Reilly
11 hours ago
Reply to  Exelleron

This times a million.

A Reader
A Reader
7 hours ago
Reply to  Exelleron

Yes! Our town is putting in traffic restrictors etc. in congested areas with more pedestrians, which I think is great. Reducing the number of multilane crosswalks helps a ton. You should already be driving slow, so this just sort of forces drivers to do so.

As to old cities, I don’t know, spent some time in Holland and their bike/people/train setups are pretty legit and also pretty old…

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
19 hours ago
Reply to  Space

My city has some pretty old intersections and they’ve been on a tear, restriping areas around intersections for bicyclist safety and extending the no parking zones to try to improve visibility of cross-traffic. Obviously, if a building ends 4 feet from the corner, that’s going to be tough, but a lot of those corners now have widened sidewalks to allow for ADA ramps.

I was in Sacramento this past week and some doofus on an e-bike, wearing headphones, ignored flashing lights, the light-rail train’s bell and horn, went around lowered crossing arms and… got squashed. Darwinism at its purest.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
1 day ago

Yes that is like asking for no speed limits but asking for no one to drive faster than a brisk walk.

Ignatius J. Reilly
Ignatius J. Reilly
11 hours ago

Last warning.

Xt6wagon
Xt6wagon
1 day ago

The hard stop when you hit the a pillar is a bit hard. Found a tree and the tree slid along the front structure till the hard stop as the a pillar was the first real structure.

AlterId, redux
AlterId, redux
1 day ago

I was surprised by this because I inferred from the headline it would be a new rear-impact test.

Hautewheels
Hautewheels
1 day ago

“At a certain point, we could all be driving bankvaults on wheels, and that’s no fun, I used to think. I’ve changed my mind on that, because…”

We all know why! Having a child really changes your perspective on things, doesn’t it? I know it did for me.

Who Knows
Who Knows
1 day ago
Reply to  Hautewheels

This article certainly comes at an interesting time for me, as we’re debating when to move our almost 5 year old to a booster seat. Maybe we should pack a bunch of sleeping bags around her anytime we’re on the highway for extra padding…

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
23 hours ago
Reply to  Who Knows

Avoid distractions and pay attention while driving she will be safer than passing any laws.

Pupmeow
Pupmeow
10 hours ago

Omg we get it. You don’t like laws. You don’t have to type the same comment dozens of times.

Paying attention while driving is great. But so are speed limits, good infrastructure, seat belts, and air bags.

Who Knows
Who Knows
6 hours ago

I do try, however, I can only do so much when traffic stops on a 2 lane highway in front of me for someone turning, or a school bus, and I’m on the horn trying to get the attention of the idiot in the giant pickup truck about to rear end me who is paying less attention to what is in front of him than I am paying to what is behind me. It is unfortunately a somewhat common occurrence.

SLM
SLM
1 day ago
Reply to  Hautewheels

I don’t have a child, but having family, friends and a life gives you the same perspective when you take the time to think about it.

Hautewheels
Hautewheels
1 day ago
Reply to  SLM

Oh, for sure. I wasn’t implying that having a child was the only way to obtain that kind of insight. But knowing that David has recently welcomed little Delmar (NHRN) into his life, I’m willing to bet this is a huge part of why he changed his mind (and this comment was directed at him).

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
23 hours ago
Reply to  Hautewheels

True but that is why people with emotional attachment to the situation shouldn’t have decision making authority

Jason H.
Jason H.
1 day ago

On one hand – it is crazy that automakers haven’t added tensioners and force limiters to the rear seats. They are cheap and we know they work to reduce injuries. This is the small overlap test all over again where vehicles were built to meet the test and the IIHS had to start testing the other side to get automakers to mirror the improvements to the other side.

On the other hand – I work for an automaker and we don’t do anything that increases cost but is invisible to the buyer unless we are forced to. The moto across all the entire industry tends to be: “meet minimum requirements in the most cost effective way possible”

Ford Magnet
Ford Magnet
1 day ago
Reply to  Jason H.

This is nonsense! The automakers don’t need to be told what to do, the free market sorts itself out and they will definitely put people’s safety over their own profits!

Jason H.
Jason H.
1 day ago
Reply to  Ford Magnet

You forgot the “/s” at the end of your comment.

Ford Magnet
Ford Magnet
1 day ago
Reply to  Jason H.

I want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it is the internet…

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
23 hours ago
Reply to  Ford Magnet

Don’t do that even here. I have been ostracized quite a few times because people don’t get sarcasm here.

Andrew Bugenis
Andrew Bugenis
1 day ago
Reply to  Ford Magnet

I mean, you jest, but that’s exactly what IIHS tests do – inform people so they can be an informed free market than automakers have to cater to. IIHS tests don’t tell automakers to do a damn thing – but a car-buying public that sees the test results of a rolling death machine certainly do.

Hautewheels
Hautewheels
1 day ago
Reply to  Ford Magnet

Ah yes, the invisible “mom arm” of the market…
(Those of you who grew up before the 1990’s will get that reference.)

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago
Reply to  Jason H.

“It’s not just good, it’s good enough!”

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
23 hours ago
Reply to  Jason H.

Have automakers stopped buyers from adding it themselves? Have they made it illegal for 3rd parties to offer them? I have never had people in the back seat of my car but apparently parents thing auto manufacturers should put these in all cars and we should all pay for them. Haven’t we read the statistics here that most people drive with only themselves or maybe 1 passenger? Why require safety devices unneeded in over 80% of cars? Aren’t they expensive enough?

Jason H.
Jason H.
23 hours ago

Same logic used to argue against seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, stability control, rear cameras, automatic braking, etc, etc, etc,

We have all of these now, cars are safer than they were in the past, AND they are cheaper* today even with all of these safety improvements. (Along with being larger, more powerful, cleaner, more fuel efficient, and much better equipped than cars from the past)

*adjusting for inflation of course which is how we measure the costs of things over time.

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
18 hours ago
Reply to  Jason H.

Volvo, Mercedes and maybe to a lesser degree Subaru made sales inroads by exceeding what they were required to do safety-wise.

I’ve read that SAAB started the 9000 on what was a shared platform with the Fiat Croma, Alfa 164 and Lancia Thema, but their engineers were appalled at its weaknesses and essentially re-engineered it.

I had an ’88 9000 Turbo in the US and rented a similar vintage Croma in Italy. I had no idea they had something of a shared heritage. The Fiat drove more lithely. But if someone were to hit me, guess which I’d rather be in.

Fortunately, in 52 years of driving, I have not been in a crash. I deserve a little credit for that–driving within my capabilities and being vigilant about others.

The Alfa is/was a beautiful car, and the engine compartment was art.

https://images.app.goo.gl/riFLoLGgm3bREeKy5

Jonathan Hendry
Jonathan Hendry
1 day ago

One of these days they’ll start testing “Log truck rear overhang” impacts and it’ll all be over.

Jason H.
Jason H.
1 day ago

It would be more logical to make the trucks safer – but the industry has successfully fought that. Both with rear underride, side barriers, and even simple things like fenders.

Hugh Crawford
Hugh Crawford
1 day ago
Reply to  Jason H.

The whole “the A pillar fails when you drive under a semi trailer and we need to fix it” never mind that sometimes there is only glass, is definitely something that needs fixing.
So fix the damn trucks already!
If trucks are going to be used on public roads, put bumpers on them.
There is absolutely no reason for trucks to not have rear bumpers.

Same for lifted pickups.

Jason H.
Jason H.
1 day ago
Reply to  Hugh Crawford

We were close on new underride regulations until 2017:

Efforts to require underride guards on trailers — which would stop a car in a collision before the passenger compartment could wedge under the trailer — and automatic emergency braking on trucks are also now on hold.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/29/567124791/trump-administration-aims-to-loosen-obama-era-truck-safety-rules

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
18 hours ago
Reply to  Jason H.

We were close to adopting the metric system too, until a certain retired actor took office. I’m sensing a pattern.

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
18 hours ago
Reply to  Hugh Crawford

I’m sure you know that’s a thing in Europe.

To this day, I don’t understand the appeal of lifted pickups. I hate them, especially at night with modern LED lighting.

1978fiatspyderfan
1978fiatspyderfan
23 hours ago
Reply to  Jason H.

Government passing regulations that ignore physics. It is a dangerous world you got two choices 1 pay attention or two have the government pass laws then trust those laws and die when people don’t follow the law.

Jason H.
Jason H.
23 hours ago

How does putting a bumper on trailers to match the bumper height of a passenger vehicle “ignore physics”?

Hugh Crawford
Hugh Crawford
23 hours ago

Except that the people who die are getting killed by the people who ignore the laws of physics.

I don’t mind risky behavior, I do mind suffering the consequences of others risky behavior.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
9 hours ago
Reply to  Hugh Crawford

“Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make”

TheDrunkenWrench
TheDrunkenWrench
1 day ago

Would you say that it would be the Final destination Test?

Red865
Red865
1 day ago

I presume someone reviews real world crashes vs crash tests to confirm the tests are accurate predictions?

Jonathan Hendry
Jonathan Hendry
1 day ago
Reply to  Red865

I’d guess they develop these based on actual impacts that have happened, probably with severe injuries or fatalities. As manufacturers design cars that better withstand tested impacts, different kinds of impacts will rise to the top of the statistics.

RKranc
RKranc
1 day ago
Reply to  Red865

I think, to some extent, it’s the other way around. They look at the real-world injuries and try to design the crash test to replicate those and then tease out why those injuries occur.

Dumb Shadetree
Dumb Shadetree
1 day ago
Reply to  RKranc

This is exactly what the IIHS does, yes. From the study quoted in the article, this test was inspired by data on rear seat injuries and fatalities.

JMJR
JMJR
1 day ago
Reply to  Red865

Supposedly Volvo does actually have a special task force in Sweden that will attend accident sites near their head quarters that involve their cars. They use the real world results to improve their crash simulations.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 day ago
Reply to  JMJR

Saab did and Mercedes and BMW (and I presume the rest of the Germans) as well. And given nonsense like the makers who reinforced ONLY the driver’s side because only that side was tested, I prefer to drive the makes that use real world info rather than those who JUST “build to the test, and no more than the test”.

Rather famously, Saabs tended to have better real world results than crash test results back in the day, and at one point their engineers even said publicly that building to whatever the test du jour was might well compromise overall safety (but they figured it out).

Andy Individual
Andy Individual
1 day ago
Reply to  JMJR

As opposed to a team that has done real world studies on their latest cabin ergonomics and controls. Volvo has lost the script on safety.

A Reader
A Reader
1 day ago
Reply to  Red865

Just real quick here, this is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and may be one of the best things that auto insurance has done for auto safety, because auto insurers incur expenses exponentially in relation to the severity of injuries. Of course insurers are always trying new things to make cars and drivers safer. There’s a huge incentive to increase profit for the industry if they can shame automakers into making safer cars. It is kind of amazing the results of this effort. I’m no fan of mandatory auto insurance, but its hard to argue with the safety results of modern cars vs. older cars.

Curious why that hasn’t occurred with the commercial transport insurers industry as to truck and trailer safety but maybe the numbers just arent there the same way they are with passenger vehicles/crashes/injuries/expenses.

Kevin Rhodes
Kevin Rhodes
1 day ago
Reply to  A Reader

I can’t help but think every time I drive modern cars with pillars big enough to hide a pair of semis, beltlines up around my ears, and weights equivalent to a small moon, that some, of what has been done to make cars safer to crash has resulted in making them easier to crash in the first place. Especially when combined with the ever increasing distractions of modern “infotainment” and ubiquitous car phones. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on the DRIVERS rather than the vehicles? Especially in the countries where a driver’s license is basically free in a box of cracker jacks, like this one.

There either needs to be mandatory liability insurance or mandatory posting of a bond sufficient to cover any damage you may do (and many states will let you do that – or even just file a statement saying you have the assets). A half-million is probably sufficient for most crashes, though this being one of the few times in life I am somewhat paranoid as I have a relative lot of assets to go after, I carry a million in liability insurance.

A Reader
A Reader
7 hours ago
Reply to  Kevin Rhodes

Yeah, well said.

The duality of our desires as we progress into the future.

On one hand regulation and government mandates can be unpopular, yet on the other we sometimes wish for high regulatory hurdles and large financial responsibilities to engage in self transport under the default system available.

It is, for sure, a puzzle.

Last edited 7 hours ago by A Reader
117
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x